High CourtsSingle Bench

Kapil Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 MP CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 397, 397(1), 401 · Pre-Conception And Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 — Section 3(1), 5(2), 6(kh), 18(1), 23(1), 29(1)
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No.3613 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 456 words

Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J

Heard on admission.

Being arguable, this revision is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on IA No. 14892 of 2023, which is the first application under Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of revision petitioner.

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 07.08.2023 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Cr.A. No. 03/2023, whereby confirming the judgment and conviction dated 31.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Gwalior (M.P.) in RCT No.2407243/2014 by which the revision petitioner has been convicted under Sections 3(1) & 18(1) read with Section 23(1), Section 6 (kh) read with Section 23(1), Section 5(2) & 23(1) and Section 29(1) & 23(1) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year (four counts) with fine of Rs.5000/-, Rs.7000/-, Rs.7000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively, with default stipulation.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Further, the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal. The revision petitioner was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Fine amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail from the date of judgment. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision in near future. No criminal antecedents is reported against the revision petitioner. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the application and prays for rejection of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties but without commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/10/2023 and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 14892 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.

List for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.